What does that mean that "A dying plant emits time" and "a growing plant absorbs time"? How much time do dying or growing plants emit or absorb and
how do you measure that?

On page 7 Swanson talks about skepticism of Kozyrev's pseudoscience and states that "However the casual reader often has difficulty in sorting out the
truth...", so how does a casual reader go about sorting out the truth about whether plants really emit or absorb time?

I could tell you how scientists sort it out but I'm sure you don't want to hear that because I think you prefer to believe in pseudoscience and
pseudoscientific claims that mainstream science is somehow suppressing some of these pseudoscientific ideas. The truth is they don't need to be
suppressed, because they don't have a leg to stand on, since you can't answer the above question about how this qualifies as science and neither can
anybody else. When pseudoscience just has no scientific basis, it's pointless to claim it's being suppressed, there's nothing scientific to suppress.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
What does that mean that "A dying plant emits time" and "a growing plant absorbs time"?

Nikolai Kozyrev used the word "time" and "time density" to refer to the physical vacuum/aether is my understanding.

I find the wording confusing and have been looking for the rationale for it.

If your intuition doesn't tell you that things which can't be
measured aren't science, then your intuition isn't working. That's not to say only things which can be measured have value, but only things which can
me measured can be studied by science.

It's also puzzling why you would try to make sense out of nonsense "have been looking for the rationale for it." Why? This pseudoscience has never
delivered one thing to your life of any value, but mainstream science has delivered many things of value to your life including whatever electronic
device you're using to communicate on this forum, the internet, etc.

So apparently you don't understand the rationale behind space-time in modern science, but yet you
make no comment that you "have been looking for the rationale for it." when it comes to modern science, you only make that comment about pseudoscience
like plants giving off or absorbing time. Very odd.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
And you really need to stop the attempt to discredit by name-calling ("pseudoscience") because you're not saying anything.

Science is based on measurements, and since you can't measure how much time a plant is emitting, it's not science to say a plant is emitting
or absorbing time. Pseudoscience in this case means not science because it's not measurable, so it is saying something.

Your example of space-time can be measured, that's why it can be called science while non-measurable claims are pseudoscience.

a reply to: ConnectDots
That makes about as much sense as this time machine based on Kozyrev pseudoscientific technology:

Once mainstream scientists see someone talking about pseudoscience like plants emitting and absorbing time, they aren't going to spend much time
trying to replicate "experiments" coming from said source, but you're free to conduct your own experiments with Kozyrev tech just like the man in that
video.

Now explain to me why they allow this video to remain on youtube and if this technology is being suppressed? I thought you said this technology was
suppressed but here is a video freely demonstrating it, doing things he's not supposed to be able to do like time travel.

I find the only problem with the idea that plants emit and absorb time is this

Time would not exist as a measure if not for energy and matter
It would be a kind of nothingness or entropy

We know matter exists and we know energy exists
Time is just an abstract idea when considering how we apply it to reality

Maybe if considering the soul we could scientifically show soul is another way of describing the process of the refining of matter through energy
being applied to it
And how as Human Beings we also are a part of this Universal Law

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.